---

Mr. Barry Legg (Milton Keynes, South-West): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I shall not give way again. I have made that absolutely clear.

We have dealt with the stability pact and exchange rate co-operation, the issue that will come to the Dublin summit. But, as all the interventions from Conservative Members who are against Europe and a single currency have made clear, the real issue is the single currency. We

11 Dec 1996 : Column 310

know that the Chancellor agrees with the principle and that a decision should be made in the national interest. We also know that he agrees that we should assess the advantages and disadvantages of being out as well as in. That would be my position as well. However, it is because the Chancellor is in favour of the principle of a single currency that the Conservative party cannot unite on the issue. That is what the House should face up to today.

At least 50 Members of Parliament and candidates have said that they will stand on a separate manifesto. Like the debate on what the IGC should recommend, the debate on a referendum and the decision made by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on that matter in March, a pattern of events is consistently followed. Conservative Euro-sceptics make a demand, they expect the Prime Minister to vacillate, the Chancellor digs in, the Prime Minister retreats a little, factional war then breaks out and the war of the factions effectively decides the final outcome.

Even when we have a period of truce, the silence lasts only a few days, sometimes even less, while regrouping takes place so that the Euro-sceptics can fight again. A group of Conservative Members is so implacably opposed to the principle of a single currency that no peace within the Conservative party is possible.

Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: No, I shall not give way.

That is the new constitutional theory that runs the Government. Ministers used to initiate, the Cabinet used to decide and Parliament used to approve. Now, however, Euro-sceptics initiate on this great issue of Europe, Ministers are always in a position of reacting, factional in-fighting always breaks out, and the war of the factions decides the final solution. That is what lies behind all the events of the past few days.

When the Chancellor went to lunch at Chez Nico only a few days ago, at the back of his mind was the attempt by Conservative Back Benchers to force on to the Prime Minister a new manifesto commitment, or at least a statement during the election campaign, that he would rule out a single currency. If anybody doubts that, he or she should read the interview given by Lord Tebbit on Sunday when he made it absolutely clear that a plan was afoot. He said that he was in discussion with Downing street and made it clear that moves were being made by some people with influence at No. 10--

"some people like myself--to find a formula which would bring me and my friends back on board. This formula, which looks as though it might be successful, was that we would accept the Prime Minister's word. Let me say that at the beginning of the election campaign he would say, 'Look, Ken Clarke takes his view. I take this view: while I am Prime Minister I can assure you we are not going into the single currency in the next Parliament because the Europeans are fudging it and it would be a mess.'"

That plan led to the article in The Daily Telegraph, which was what so exercised the Chancellor when he went to lunch. It was just a few days after the Budget when he had been boasting about the state of the economy. When he went to that lunch with two BBC journalists, was he there to boast about his great economic achievements and his success story in Europe? What was on his mind? What was his agenda? Was it to defend the Budget? Was it to reassert the ringing declaration of his loyalty and that

"any enemy of John Major is an enemy of mine"?

11 Dec 1996 : Column 311

No. What was his real agenda? So keen was the Chancellor, after the events of the previous few days, to unburden himself on the European issue that, it is reported, he did not even drink much of the two bottles of wine that were produced by the BBC reporters--he was talking so much. It turned out to be a perfect lunch. That may be an additional reason why the Chancellor got more exercised towards the end of the conversation. The significant claim that he made was not about explosives or scooters. The significant claim that he made--the straight talking--was, according to the report,

"Mr. Clarke does not doubt that the source of the story ruling out a single currency was someone close to the Prime Minister."

In vino veritas. No wonder his mind was not on the Budget or the economy. It was on the attempted betrayal, as he saw it, of No. 11 Downing street by No. 10. After that, the next stage of the familiar cycle started to work itself out. Nothing that I could say about what is going on in the Tory party could be as damaging as what its members have said about each other over the past few days, with talk of madness, purges, Ministers alleged to be puppets, allegations of political suicide, betrayal, treachery--those are only the allegations that they made about themselves during the past week--words that make the Chancellor's comments about boomerangs, explosives and scooters seem mild and statesmanlike, even if he was speaking through the wine that he had enjoyed. One member--

The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I am not giving way now. [Interruption.]

Mr. Oppenheim: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having the courtesy to give way. He is in misquotation mood. He claimed earlier that I made a statement on "Breakfast with Frost". It may have been a little too early for the right hon. Gentleman--he was probably bleary. Let me tell him what I said. It was not what he claimed. I said:

"I am a Euro-sceptic. I may not be in quite the same league as you . . . "--

I was referring to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)--

"but I would find it totally unacceptable if the British Government was trying to commit us to EMU without having a referendum and without it going through Parliament."

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have the good grace to apologise for his earlier misquotation.

Mr. Brown: The Minister said that he was a Euro-sceptic. I saw "Breakfast with Frost". He has now read out his statement. The Minister who is to reply to the debate on behalf of the Chancellor later this evening went on the programme as a Treasury Minister who is supposed to defend the documents, and said that he was a Euro-sceptic. [Interruption.]

The House will look strangely on a Minister of the Treasury who said publicly on "Breakfast with Frost" that he was a Euro-sceptic. That sends out a clear message. If he says--which I accept--that he does not support the principle of a single currency without a referendum being held and without proper parliamentary approval--[Hon. Members: "Apologise."] If the Minister is saying that he will not support the principle of a single currency--economic and monetary union--without a referendum and without the matter coming before the

11 Dec 1996 : Column 312

House, is he saying that with a referendum and after it has come before the House, he will be prepared to support the principle of a single currency?

Mr. Oppenheim: Earlier in the debate the right hon. Gentleman attributed to me a statement that was wrong. It is beneath him and shows ill grace for him not to withdraw it and apologise.

Mr. Brown: I was reading the quotation from The Independent on the Monday after the Minister's Frost interview. Does he deny saying that he was a Euro-sceptic? [Hon. Members: "Withdraw."] "I am a Euro-sceptic," he said. That is typical of the Conservative party. Conservative Members are divided and they are clutching at straws. We have a Conservative Treasury Minister--

Mr. Douglas Hurd (Witney): The right hon. Gentleman should not debate in this way. After the remark about my hon. Friend being a Euro-sceptic, the right hon. Gentleman went on to attribute to him remarks on the Frost programme that he now knows my hon. Friend did not make. In those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw.

Mr. Brown: I am reading the report from The Independent. [Hon. Members: "Withdraw."] If I have misquoted the hon. Gentleman, I apologise. [Hon. Members: "Five minutes."] The hon. Gentleman said that he is a Treasury Minister who is a Euro-sceptic. Given a referendum and parliamentary approval, would he support the principle of economic and monetary union--yes or no?

Mr. Oppenheim: Only if the Government of the time thought that that was in the British interest. That is the policy of the Government Front Bench, subject to a referendum. I understood that that was the policy of the Opposition Front Bench, too.

Mr. Brown: There is the division. During the debate the Chancellor said that he supports the principle of monetary union. The Minister cannot say that. Is that not an example of the division at the heart of the Treasury? Conservative Members are clutching at straws if they believe that they can wish away the fact that within the Treasury the Chancellor says one thing and the Minister who is to reply to the debate says another.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that wine played a much smaller part at the lunch than he believes, but that is the least of my complaints against the BBC journalists involved?

On the argument that the right hon. Gentleman is trying so passionately to deploy, can he deny that if he went to lunch with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), he would not find the slightest shred of agreement on any of his arguments? At least 50 members of the Labour party do not believe a word that he is saying and would vote against his argument if they had the chance. Why is he trying to distract attention, instead of trying to deal seriously with the real issues?

---